|
|
The massive thing is being able to grow these things one way or another from your own cells, no rejection, no immunosupression. Most people aren't aware that transplanted organs regularly last as little as 15 years and then you need another whatever it is, more surgery, more drugs, more cost and more trauma. Even if the new transplants are a bit weak at first and only last 10 years they can be growing you another one while you use the first and you won't have the immunology problems transplant patients do now. It will be a strange world indeed.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
|
While growing replacement organs would certinaly be automated I don't ever forsee implanting them or remvoing old ones being done by machine. I think nanotech repair and direct maintenance of cells will probably be achieved before autonomous robotic surgery but futurology is a mugs game.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right of course, it's just that on a cellular level we're all just about identical and intervention can be systematic. Cutting people open is a different business, everyones vascular and nervous systems are slightly different, there's no precise enough template to be certain before opening someone up. Each cut don't cut decision is informed by experience, intuition and a lot of real time information. Maybe scanning technology and different kinds of cutting technology can get over that or maybe not we'll see.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: The life expectancy of people will likely triple as the only thing we will likely struggle with is the human brain.
Well, this is ignoring economics of course. Our current, and as far as any system I've seen proposed, can't support an elderly populace that does not continue to provide utility. Lengthening lifespans will not go mainstream unless it also lengthens one's useful lifespan.
Depressing stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
People would actually choose to lengthen then non-useful lifespan?
People are weird.
Even a normal Quality of Life just barely makes it worth the costs, and they would want to lengthen the part of their life where their QoL is falling like a brick?
|
|
|
|
|
If they are depending on the government that pays them retirement benefits to be the life lengthener (in the form of organ growing healthcare), goodluck, they won't after a person's utility is gone.
In the free market, it will be offered, but only until the elderly is out of capital (no descendants will count on inheritance any more, not necessarily a bad thing). Systems like this exists now for elderly care, they depend on the sale of an estate after death, but I think the body will quickly need all new organs and the debt will quickly outpace capital. Add the organ regrowing onto the cost of care, and most elderly won't afford it.
Let's face it, companies are in the business of making money. Could you go out and get a load for an organ transplant surgery right now, if you were on government checks and 70 years old. If you're house wasn't already mortgaged for your current healthcare, I highly doubt it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/11/loans-elderly-death-residential-care[^]
What it will do is provide life lengthening for children, young adults, and middle aged people. So, it will bring up the average lifespan, by bringing in the bell curve from the left side, and maybe a total shift to the right of a few years, but I really highly doubt anything like a doubling.
|
|
|
|
|
That won't be a problem because it will be so damned expensive only an elite few will have access and they have money to spend so no one cares if they are productive.
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what I was hinting at. I love how people that have never been denied medical care or treatment (unlike myself) are telling me how a life saving surgery would be paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
What is useful lifespan?
Is developing games on Android useful?
If so, how is that more useful than painting, or playing music; or sitting on a bench drinking beer all day?
I think 'usefulness' and 'earning potential' are two entirely different things.
They are only the same from an abstract utilitarian point of view, but that's just one way to think about it.
I don't think elderly should die because they can't develop Android games, or any other reason. The entire idea that we should passively kill people because they aren't economically valuable is unethical and beyond absurd.
.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just saying how it is. Do you expect economically motivated entities to extend your life once your economic utility is depleted? Individuals, as do corporations, and governments, overwhelmingly act on their own behalf and not for the good of others.
|
|
|
|
|
Genetic printing is one of the weirder emerging technologies to think about.
I think THE major implication is not the increased life span, but the fact that we can use the same techniques to replicate food using nothing but a genetic blueprints, energy and 'waste' .
Disgusting as that sounds, it's essentially the same thing we do now; only that our printers are animals, plants and large areas farming ground to catch enough sunlight.
The fact is that industrial farming is highly inefficient and damaging to the environment, not to mention cruel at times, so we'll have to deal with the following dilemma:
Will we choose the infinite supermarket of artificial meat and veggies, or should we keep things "natural". What will the impact of the mass use of cloned food be on the populations health (immune system, allergies, etc...)? And will natural food become something only the super rich can afford?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Hang on, I've gotta just finish this e-mail...
... Is it too insulting to ask "are you too small?"? Should I phrase it more delicately?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|